Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1887-06-08

whether an earnest campaign
in the South would not break the neck
of the Bourbon rule in several OF the
Southern States" The TTmeS-Star has
not been heard from since Mr.. Sher-
mans effort at Springfield. In fact since
then we have seen in no Republican
journal anything that could be construed
into an intimation that an earnest cam
paign at the South under the Sherman
leadership would break the neck of the
Bourbon rule in several OF the Southern
States"
There is little doubt but that a neck
has been broken already, but it is not
the "neck of Bourbon rule in the South"
by any means.
The fact of the case is that Mr.. John
Sherman was only warmed physically dur
ing his visit South. The political warmth
he went to seek failed to materalize.
The great hook with which Mr.. Sher-
man was to be drawn to the Southern
bosom was the protective tariff. Mr..
Sherman was himself to furnish this
hook, so as the Southern people would be
certain to have it. But this hook
was already well known to the South
ern people, and they had, and have, very
different uses for it than in catching on
to Mr.. Sherman with it. They caught
on to Mr.. Sherman indeed, but not in the
way he desired. The people of the South
are Democrats. They stand firmly and
squarely upon the tariff plank Of the
Democratic Convention of 1884. South
ern allegiance to tariff and Southern
endorsement of John Sherman were two
entirely different things. The South
needs revenue tariff. She does not need
John Sherman. Mr.. Sherman's little
personal scheme failed to dovetail with
Southern necessities. The South fully
understood this before Mr.. Sherman
came. Mr.. Sherman fully understood it
when he went away.
From Mr.. Sherman's thorough appre-
citation of his failure in the South came
his Springfield speech. He had nothing
to hope for from the Southern people.
Therefore, at the first fitting opportunity,
he threw off the irksome restraint
imposed by a selfish self-interest, and
spoke of the South and her people as he
really thought. The people he had
lately fawned upon-a beggar for per-
sonal and political favors-he now Wilt
fies anew in the old Sherman-strain, 50
familiar to the public. The only per-
ceptible difference is an increase of the
old venom. The malice of disappointed
cbicanery is now added to the ISLANDERS
which have been active for twenty
years.
Neither the South nor the Nation
at large, are much surprised. Bit
ter experience long ago taught the
South what John Sherman really
is, and the personal observation
consequent upon Mr.. Shermsn's late
Southern visit has only emphasized
southern opinion. The Nation itself is not
surprised at Sherman's Springfield
speech. Why should it be? Has it not
heard it every year for nearly a quarter
of century,
But this well known and time-tattered
speech carries with it last deep and
marked significance. 1t means some
thing this time. 1t marks the final
death of the war issue. 1t means
that John Sherman and the Re-
publicanism he leads and represents
have nothing to offer the Nation but the
bloody shirt. 1t means that sectionalism
is the only thing upon Which the Repub-
lican party can appeal to the people.
John Sherman's Springfield speech shows
that Republicanism is indeed in its last
ditch. The bloody shirt for standard,
and sectionalism blazoned on it's crimson
folds. Such is the Republican pro-
gramme-such is the Republican policy
for 1888.
Republican defeat is now as certain as
is the glorious fact that the sun OF Amer
lea shines upon united nation.
And so Mr.. John Sherman's boom
booms no more. He falls by the political
wayside and his party falls with him.
"John Sherman at the South" had ring
of hope, faIlacious though it was. "Johr
Sherman at Springfeld' tells only o.